Idle thoughts on the culture war

[tahnan]

Last night on the Daily Show, I watched an interview with Bernard Goldberg, author of 100 People Who Are Screwing Up America (and Al Franken Is #37), the premise of which seems to be that the culture is dying (afternote: Anna Nicole Smith and Eminem are on the list, so it's at least partly cultural).

Tonight I watched a movie with a high schooler smoking pot, two high school freshman girls discussing oral sex in a cafeteria and practicing on carrots, one of them lying about her age to a 26 year old to lose her virginity to him, later getting an abortion...that would be "Fast Times at Ridgemont High." Looks like the culture was already ruined in 1982.

Great movie, though.

---

Idly trying to find the list of who the hundred people are, I learned from a right-wing blog that one of them is, in his opinion, "The man who makes a living teaching America college kids to hate their own country: Noam Chomsky" (who's in the book at #11). Aha! Finally someone has explained to me what Minimalist Syntax is about. (Since that's what the man makes his living teaching, after all. Well, he's retired now, but even so.)

Other searching tells me that the list isn't entirely cultural. Then again, I have no idea what Ted Kennedy is doing at #3; one senator in the minority party has that much power? I think I'm glad I voted for him. And apparently #7 is Margaret Marshall, chief justice of Massachusetts state Supreme Court. I might have to find the book to learn whether she is, in fact, ruining America in wide swaths, or if this is a symbolic choice representing a single that's screwing up America.

(And: Michael Newdow? He didn't even win his court case. And, wow, Eve Ensler? I wonder if I have the patience to read the book and find out why.)

Comments

[in-parentheses.livejournal.com]

Oh, don't read it. It'll just make your brain explode. It's making my brain explode just reading your post about not having read it yet!

But if you do read it, explain to me about Eve Ensler. Maybe she's symbolic of vaginas. Vaginas are screwing up America! ...Or screwing America, at any rate. Ba-dum-ching. Back to work...

[leighjen.livejournal.com]

I suspect it is all about the horrific way she says "vagina" on stage and then goes on to talk about sexual acts on that very same stage! We can't let women talk about sex now can we? They might become sluts.

[aneequs.livejournal.com]

Isn't Margaret Marshall the one who told the legislature to legalize gay marriage?

I got to ride in a car with her once at a wedding. :)

[lilisonna.livejournal.com]

God forbid we actually enjoy sex. The horror!

Tahnan, read the book and let us know what it says so our brains can suffer smaller explosions.

[redbeard.livejournal.com]

Eve Ensler? Why do you even need to ask - because she's let the big secret out of the bag. Shhhhh! Don't tell anyone! Women? They have....VAGINAS! And they're not just random things tacked on to them for male pleasure! I know, shocking. But like I said, mum's the word.



There are few things in this world that make me wish I was a book-burning-fascist. This might be one of them.
*sigh* No. Damn you ethics and morals! Even this book won't do the trick!

[probably-lost.livejournal.com]

I looked up the list after watching the Daily Show (and has Jon _ever_ gone after one of his guests that aggressively?), and it made steam come out of my ears. Basically, I think it's a bait-and-switch. He tells you it's about the culture, and throws in some pop culture figures and token conservatives, but mostly the list is dominated by Anyone Who Has Had the Temerity to Criticize President Bush.

I mean, Jane Smiley???

Now I'm going to go try to think about something else since this book is really not worth the time. (Don't read it, that's my advice.)

[egowumpus.livejournal.com]

Since moving to the new venue there are a number of signs that the Daily Show - and perhaps Stewart in particular - is taking a far more opinionated stance. Part of it is their new setup: much more Larry King, much less Tonight Show. Part of it is the way they're dealing with their guests, which is far less "tell us about yourself" and much more "here is a pointed question."

So, thats an interesting evolution, I think.

A list from the depths of wingnuttia

[eyelessgame.livejournal.com]

Jimmy Carter is #6 on his list. Jimmy Carter. Jimmy "house the homeless" Carter is screwing up our country.

Presumably for his lack of appreciation for the Protestant work ethic.

The top ten also include the head of the ACLU, the head of People for the American Way, and the publisher of the New York Times. It includes Jesse Jackson, Ted Kennedy, and (of course) Michael Moore.

The author is a whack-job.

I have a theory

[eyelessgame.livejournal.com]

The list is "100 people who cause Republicans to believe they look bad".

Mostly they are people who issue pointed criticism or ridicule of Republicans. (Kos made the list! At #52!)

But it includes Roy Moore, David Duke, and the abortion-clinic bomber.

The strongest evidence for my thesis, however, is that it doesn't include either one of the Clintons. Why? Because Republicans like having them around -- they energize Republicans.

Re: A list from the depths of wingnuttia

[tahnan.livejournal.com]

I think Jimmy Carter's on there, based on earlier searching for the list, because he goes around undercutting American foreign policy.

I like the "make the Republicans look bad" theory though. Although I have to say, even if that's right, then Fred Phelps ought to be on there.

Re: A list from the depths of wingnuttia

[navrins]

It seems premature to dismiss him as a "whack-job" if you haven't read any of his justifications for his picks.

I haven't read it, don't plan to, and don't agree with what I hear he said, but I'm dismissing him only as uninteresting and unlikely to be right, not as a nut.

Re: A list from the depths of wingnuttia

[eyelessgame.livejournal.com]

You're correct, in that I have drawn a tentative conclusion based on the available evidence. He has drawn up precisely the list of enemies that a wingnut whack-job would make.

This does not demonstrate that he is a wingnut whack-job; he may have a completely different set of reasons -- position of Jupiter at their 12th birthdays, for example -- for choosing these 100 people. But since I don't know of any other set of criteria that would choose these 100 people other than the mindset of a wingnut whack-job, this was my conclusion. If other evidence is presented to me, I'll of course revisit the conclusion.

But when one has grown to the fullness of adulthood and has sampled a wide variety of foods, it is legitimate to conclude the content of an unfamiliar dish on the basis of smell.